I have been involved in those threads yes, but I never said the plant didn't melt down. I had a lengthy conversation about how radiation is diluted
and he said radiation couldn't be diluted...it was rather funny.

Please, quote me. I have never, not once, disagreed with a 40% increase.

Did you read what you quoted? There is no damage control. I was referencing IPCC numbers...

I have never once disagreed that co2 hasn't increased 40%. I have made it perfectly clear that the 40% increase is only partially man made. I have
linked peer reviewed articles as well as the lates IPCC report to back that up.

You are just stuck on 40% without understanding what makes up that 40%.

Edit: Also, you NEVER answered the question I asked there. Why do you think otherwise. You have YET to link one single scientific article that shows
all 40% is man made...I directly linked you a study published in NATURE that shows that 25% of the increase in co2 is from anthropogenic sources and
comprises 7% of co2 for the atmosphere. I have already said we can reasonably say that since 60% of mans co2 is reclaimed instead of natural co2
sources, that means over half of the co2 increase is mans. That other half is from natural sources. I used that article because it was the highest
estimate for co2 in the atmosphere I could find. I didn't pick one that was lower intentionally.

Edit2: That information, based on what one of the anti AGW crowd posted about 330 PPM...hey, you just found your missing 50PPM...

If in fact, the baseline should have been 330 and not 280, then in that case man accounts for 100% of the added co2. As is now, with a baseline of
280, man accounts for just over half of the added co2.

So the links from the IPCC and scholarly articles from peer reviewed sources that I used are Pseudoscience? Are you for real? You are embarrassing
yourself at this point. You have crossed the line into defensive mode, so you are starting to spew what I assume are some type of perceived
intellectual insults. You have yet to link one article to show why you think all 40% is man made.

And so where are the molecules of CO2 from human combustion going? People can approximately count them. In reality almost all the rise is from
consequences of human activity---and some of the fossil carbon is being absorbed into the ocean so it would be even worse (if you're not a crustacean)
if it all went in the atmosphere.

Ah, I now see the source of your error. You hear about 4% of carbon flux out per year is from humans (which may be true) but there is also a large
yearly natural carbon flux back in---and it's the cumulative effect which matters obviously so even if it's 4% per year (considering the size of the
biosphere and planet that number is astonishingly large to me!!!) additional the human responsibility for the long-term rise can be much more than 4%.

Co2 was 10's of times higher in the past. A runaway greenhouse was not triggered. The effects of co2 are logarithmic.

Deep in the past, sure. But everything about the climate was different then, and most importantly there were no humans, much less technological
civilization supporting 7 billion on the biosphere as opposed to 50,000 in prehistoric times. And climate changes were associated with mass
extinctions. Good idea to NOT tempt that.

And most importantly, back then (many millions of years) the Sun was not as hot and did not radiate as much power (known fact of stellar physics) and
so the climate would be cooler then with the same CO2 as now, and likewise with very high CO2 now as then the climate would be hotter still.

Nobody is predicting a 'runaway greenhouse' like Venus---because that isn't just catastrophic for humans but all life. It doesn't have to be anywhere
near that large for the results to be a huge problem for humans.

Consider that the difference between current climate and deep ice ages was, on average, about 5 C cooler than today. 5 degrees C difference on global
average temp meant that glaciers were TWO MILES THICK in New York, and agriculture was infeasible for nearly all of the land on the planet. We're
barreling towards a Heat Age of almost a similar magnitude up. You don't think that won't be a tremendous problem?

This has some answers to the question you pose.

280ppm CO2 pre industrial CO2

400ppm CO2 NOW!

Why do I need to cite a source for these numbers again? Read the thread for sources or simply use google. I will waste my time trying to enlighten
someone with a disinfo agenda.

Clearly we are responsible for a 40% increase in CO2 over a few hundred years. This concentration is increasing fast, at a rate of about 20ppm per
decade.

Enough of the Brawndo style debating.

Do you propose any solutions?

There are many plant varieties than can go from seed to fully grown in just a few months. Planting more trees is a start. Ending our addiction to
fossil fuels in necessary of we want to become a type 1 civilization.

This content community relies on user-generated content from our member contributors. The opinions of our members are not those of site ownership who maintains strict editorial agnosticism and simply provides a collaborative venue for free expression.